Soldier freed from Taliban after 5 year captivity

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Jihadin**

If it does happen, UCMJ prosecution, I can only imagine the out cry by the General Public and this thread exploding.

**Frazzled**

Well he's in San Antonio now. He went from hot to REALLY HOT. They need to feed that boy some TexMex and pronto.

**Ahtman**

Seaward wrote:And attacking that while trying desperately to ignore the note he left before walking off the base is just weird. Ahtman asked for evidence that Bergdahl walked off. He got it.

And then you made up a bunch of stuff about me and my intent in a desperate attempt to defflect. None of those articles show that note, and only one mentions it in passing, which doesn't really mean much as there are still conflicting reports about it. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but there is room to doubt it at this time as much as there is to believe it. The only actual evidence shown are the letters written while in captivity.

Seaward wrote:I get that you guys are invested in the narrative that Bergdahl didn't desert. I just don't get why.

Not saying didn't, just that the investigation isn't over and all the facts aren't in yet. Making the classic error of assuming since I don't agree with a point then I must believe the opposite, even though I've clearly sated I'm not taking either stance.

CptJake wrote:I would love Ahtman and Co'Tor Shas to go into their alternate theories of how he managed to be off the COP when the Talibs grabbed him.

Why would I do what others are doing and jumping to conclusions one way or the other? All I've advocated is exactly what the DoD itself has, which is "we need to reserve judgment until that process is complete". When all is said and done and they determine his guilt one way or the other. I have no real doubt he wandered off, but until he is convicted of deserting I'm not going to call him a deserter and pretend I have perfect knowledge of the situation.

**whembly**

I agree that we need the let the process run its course.

Ahtman wrote:

I get that you guys are invested in the narrative that Bergdahl didn't desert. I just don't get why.

**Jihadin**

Ahtman wrote:
Seaward wrote:And attacking that while trying desperately to ignore the note he left before walking off the base is just weird. Ahtman asked for evidence that Bergdahl walked off. He got it.

And then you made up a bunch of stuff about me and my intent in a desperate attempt to defflect. None of those articles show that note, and only one mentions it in passing, which doesn't really mean much as there are still conflicting reports about it. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but there is room to doubt it at this time as much as there is to believe it. The only actual evidence shown are the letters written while in captivity.

Seaward wrote:I get that you guys are invested in the narrative that Bergdahl didn't desert. I just don't get why.

Not saying didn't, just that the investigation isn't over and all the facts aren't in yet. Making the classic error of assuming since I don't agree with a point then I must believe the opposite, even though I've clearly sated I'm not taking either stance.

CptJake wrote:I would love Ahtman and Co'Tor Shas to go into their alternate theories of how he managed to be off the COP when the Talibs grabbed him.

Why would I do what others are doing and jumping to conclusions one way or the other? All I've advocated is exactly what the DoD itself has, which is "we need to reserve judgment until that process is complete". When all is said and done and they determine his guilt one way or the other. I have no real doubt he wandered off, but until he is convicted of deserting I'm not going to call him a deserter and pretend I have perfect knowledge of the situation.

Your appear to be hung up on us convicting him of Article 85 "Desertion"

(a) Any member of the armed forces who–

(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;

(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or

(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another on of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States; is guilty of desertion.

(b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion.

(c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

Section 1 and 2 he falls into. Question now is "why" he did it. Is his reason to violate Article 85 justifiable to avoid getting hit with this charge or lessen the effect of the charge to Non Judicial

Loosely and I mean "loosely" a clarification
Civilian world your innocent until your proven guilty of your actions
Military world is your guilty until your proven innocent of your actions

Edit 1

Back to complete this further.

If the Two Star cannot justify charging Bergdahl with Article 85 Desertion or Bergdahl justification prevents charging him with Article 85
Bergdahl then can be charged with

Article 86 Absence without Leave

Any member of the armed forces who, without authority–

(1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;

(2) goes from that place; or

(3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed;

shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

EDIT

Seems Hollywood is interested in doing a movie about his situation and ordeal

**whembly**

Well then...

The Morning Spew @TheMorningSpew
Follow
According to Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, Bergdahl to be charged with desertion.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also... saw this.

**Jihadin**

About freaking time.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Jihadin wrote:
About freaking time.

Agreed.

And I know he's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.... but feth him. I hope he makes big rocks into little rocks for the rest of his natural life, or rides the lightning, or goes before a firing squad, or whatever the military decides.

**CptJake**

I suspect, if convicted, the sentence will be light because of the mitigating factor of his captivity.

**Jihadin**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
About freaking time.

Agreed.

And I know he's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.... but feth him. I hope he makes big rocks into little rocks for the rest of his natural life, or rides the lightning, or goes before a firing squad, or whatever the military decides.

I want to see the charge sheet

Highest charge mention was Desertion but there are other Articles involve to.
Question would be if he willing to be judged by his "peers" or Judge only.

**Zad Fnark**

Hell probably get a few years.

The US Army has historically treated desertion relatively lightly, Eddie Slovik notwithstanding.

Still, a dishonorable discharge is the equivalent of a felony rap.

Ed-

**CptJake**

I would not be surprised if he does a plea for an AWOL charge, and due to the 'captive of the Taliban' factor isn't given a dishonorable so he can keep VA benefits.

I hope I'm wrong, but there is a LOT of PC crap involved in high visibility or potentially high visibility cases in the Army at this point.

**djones520**

Zad Fnark wrote:
Hell probably get a few years.

The US Army has historically treated desertion relatively lightly, Eddie Slovik notwithstanding.

Still, a dishonorable discharge is the equivalent of a felony rap.

Ed-

After 5 years with the Taliban, it's unlikely that he'll see time. A dishonorable discharge would be the worst in my opinion.

**Jihadin**

Depends on the type of Discharge he would receive.
If he's nailed on Desertion, which I think he totally self incriminated himself then nada.

http://www.benefits.va.gov/BENEFITS/docs/COD_Factsheet.pdf

**Breotan**

Here's what I don't understand. Why does the Obama administration even care about this guy? They gain nothing by trying to force this to "go away" so what's the point?

**Jihadin**

That he (Obama) freed the only American captive from the Insurgents. A PFC (SGT) for five high level Taliban figures. Which puts the US Army in a jam being now they have to put Bergdahl through UCMJ action.

**Dreadclaw69**

Breotan wrote:
Here's what I don't understand. Why does the Obama administration even care about this guy? They gain nothing by trying to force this to "go away" so what's the point?

Face saving. The Administration does not appear to have given the legally mandated 30 days notice for the release of prisoners from Guantanamo, and they traded 5 high ranking terrorists for someone now about to stand trial for desertion. A cynic could say that they gave up more than they got.

**reds8n**

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/01/27/bergdahl-army-update-false-reports/22396367/

The Army says there is no truth to media reports claiming a decision has been made to charge Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl with desertion.

The Army continues to review the case against Bergdahl, said Paul Boyce, a spokesman for Forces Command, on Tuesday morning.

"Sgt. Bergdahl has not been charged with any crime," said Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby during a press briefing Tuesday afternoon.

"No decision has been made with respect to the case of Sgt. Bergdahl," Kirby said. "None. There is no timeline to make that decision, and Gen. [Mark] Milley is being put under no pressure to make a decision."

In a report Monday citing two anonymous military sources, retired Lt. Col. Tony Schaffer told Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" that the Army plans to charge Bergdahl with desertion. Schaffer also told the outlet his sources confirmed to him that Bergdahl's lawyer has been given a charge sheet.

No charge sheets were available Tuesday, and Boyce said he is unaware of any charge sheets being issued against Bergdahl, adding that the Fox News story "seems to be speculative in nature." Bergdahl's attorney Eugene Fidell declined to comment. NBC News, citing an anonymous senior defense official, is also reporting a desertion charge is coming, possibly within the week.

Milley, commanding general of Forces Command, "is reviewing now the Army's facts and findings to determine, impartially, any appropriate next steps and possible actions," Boyce said.

Milley is "actively reviewing the case," he said. "No decision's been made."

There is no timeline for when Milley must make a decision.

Milley received the Army's investigation Dec. 22, Boyce said.

Bergdahl, 28, disappeared from Combat Outpost Mest-Lalak in Paktika province, Afghanistan, on June 30, 2009.

He spent five years as a captive under the Taliban before he was freed in a May 31 prisoner swap that also freed five Taliban leaders from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

He is now assigned to a desk job at U.S. Army North at Joint Base San Antonio-Fort Sam Houston, Texas, while he awaits the outcome of the Army's review.

The Army has declined to release any details of the six-month investigation into the circumstances surrounding his disappearance.

Then-Spc. Bergdahl was accused of leaving his patrol base alone and intentionally before he was captured by Taliban insurgents in 2009.

A prior investigation of Bergdahl's disappearance — conducted in 2009 long before his return — found that some members of his unit believed Bergdahl left his patrol base alone at night at least once before and returned safely.

As the general court-martial convening authority, Milley has several courses of action, from no further action against Bergdahl to court-martial.

The case presents a challenge for the Army's leadership, which has to decide whether to punish a soldier who spent five years as a prisoner of war or essentially overlook the allegations of misconduct that surrounded his disappearance.

**Relapse**

CptJake wrote:
I suspect, if convicted, the sentence will be light because of the mitigating factor of his captivity.

This guy got off extremely lightly:

http://www.businessinsider.com/deserter-charles-jenkins-lived-in-north-korea-for-40-years-2014-5

His story is told in a documentary, " Crossing the Line", which I believe is on Netflix at the moment. He spent his time in North Korea making propoganda films.

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
Well then...

The Morning Spew @TheMorningSpew
Follow
According to Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, Bergdahl to be charged with desertion.

Well, good on the Lt. Col. for reporting this week's orbital blowout.

**Jihadin**

MSNBC also reported the same but from a different source

Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was held captive by enemy forces in Afghanistan for five years, will likely be charged with desertion, senior defense officials tell NBC News.

The officials point out that Bergdahl will likely face a lesser charge of desertion described in the Uniform Code of Military Justice as leaving a post to avoid duty or shirk an important assignment, based on his actions when he left a remote outpost in June 2009.

Those charges carry a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison upon conviction, but sources tell NBC News the Army is considering crediting Bergdahl for the 5 years he spent in captivity and be given the opportunity to avoid prosecution by leaving the Army with a "less than honorable discharge."

If accepted, Bergdahl could be denied as much as $300,000 in back pay and benefits and be reduced in rank from Sergeant to Private First Class or lower.

The charges will apparently not allege that Bergdahl left with the intent never to return. Bergdahl was reportedly captured by the Haqqani terrorist network in Pakistan and was later released in a prisoner swap for five Taliban commanders held at Guantanamo Bay in May.

Army General Mark Milley, the command authority in the Bergdahl case, has not publicly released his findings, and Pentagon Spokesman Read Admiral Kirby reiterated said on Tuesday that "no decision has been made" yet.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/bowe-bergdahl-likely-be-charged-desertion-officials-say-n294466

No one in authority is really going to comment on this just avoid perception of Command Influence. Milley I think is going to press UCMJ action

**Dreadclaw69**

Jihadin wrote:
MSNBC also reported the same but from a different source

Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was held captive by enemy forces in Afghanistan for five years, will likely be charged with desertion, senior defense officials tell NBC News.

The officials point out that Bergdahl will likely face a lesser charge of desertion described in the Uniform Code of Military Justice as leaving a post to avoid duty or shirk an important assignment, based on his actions when he left a remote outpost in June 2009.

Those charges carry a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison upon conviction, but sources tell NBC News the Army is considering crediting Bergdahl for the 5 years he spent in captivity and be given the opportunity to avoid prosecution by leaving the Army with a "less than honorable discharge."

If accepted, Bergdahl could be denied as much as $300,000 in back pay and benefits and be reduced in rank from Sergeant to Private First Class or lower.

The charges will apparently not allege that Bergdahl left with the intent never to return. Bergdahl was reportedly captured by the Haqqani terrorist network in Pakistan and was later released in a prisoner swap for five Taliban commanders held at Guantanamo Bay in May.

Army General Mark Milley, the command authority in the Bergdahl case, has not publicly released his findings, and Pentagon Spokesman Read Admiral Kirby reiterated said on Tuesday that "no decision has been made" yet.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/bowe-bergdahl-likely-be-charged-desertion-officials-say-n294466

No one in authority is really going to comment on this just avoid perception of Command Influence. Milley I think is going to press UCMJ action

They can factor in the time that he was a captive? That seems a somewhat strange proposition

**CptJake**

All kinds of things will be presented as mitigating factors.

**djones520**

CptJake wrote:
All kinds of things will be presented as mitigating factors.

Yeah. This is going to be a case of a paper trial. The Army needs to appear to do something, but in the end, nothing will be done.

**Jihadin**

I doubt he be getting the 200K still sitting in the account. He get VA benefits for treatment and all that because they have a say to what the Army has to say.